100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: mr president | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I find it is funny that a man who thinks about his answers before he speaks instead of speaking the practiced rhetoric is considered ingenuine at some level. I guess we are so used to the smooth easiness of false rhetoric that we can't appreciate a real thought spoken in earnest, huh? I think we humans can some times be so suspicious of someone we don't particularly like we can't recognize when someone is being genuine. It's often not easy to let go of that to allow ourselves to hear. I agree. It's not thinking about the answer though - it's thinking about the wording. Any topic that he gives a real answer to is normally quick. When he does his stumbling "uh, uh" thing, the answer that follows normally is not direct and it is very thought out as to not tie himself down to anything of controversy. That is not what I see. Usually a coverup is well planned out and the answers are robotic. I never said coverup - I said tying himself down. Case in point: my thread. He went on and on about the 95% tax cut all through the campaign. He went on about it as the stimulus was written. Now, when confronted in a media conference whether or not he'll sign the budget if it lacks the cornerstone of his economic policy, he stumbles and goes on about the other items in the budget he pushed for, effectively dodging the question. The reporter calls him on it and he stumbles again. he's a great public speaker so long as his tele is with him or it's his robotic talking points. once he's on the spot, he loses all composure and stumbles just as bad as bush. That is not true. I have watched for the deception and it is not there. Now Bush had all his stuff planned and robotic. He messed up a few times and they fixed him real quick because he was going to be in jail if he talked on his own. so you think the fact he never answered the actual question being completely open and honest? There's no deception in the fact that he is leaving a loophole for his own tax cuts that he campaigned on for 20 months to be repealed? Ironically, I'm sure the other things he listed in his "answer" are likely the reason he cannot keep the tax cuts. Can't have your cake and eat it too. He answered the best he could. Not all answers are going to make everyone happy. you didn't answer the question. Is it right for him to campaign for so long on these tax breaks and when asked if he'd sign a bill that did not include them (twice) not answer no? one word is all i need unless you say yes... then I'd like a logical reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it is funny that a man who thinks about his answers before he speaks instead of speaking the practiced rhetoric is considered ingenuine at some level. I guess we are so used to the smooth easiness of false rhetoric that we can't appreciate a real thought spoken in earnest, huh? I think we humans can some times be so suspicious of someone we don't particularly like we can't recognize when someone is being genuine. It's often not easy to let go of that to allow ourselves to hear. I agree. It's not thinking about the answer though - it's thinking about the wording. Any topic that he gives a real answer to is normally quick. When he does his stumbling "uh, uh" thing, the answer that follows normally is not direct and it is very thought out as to not tie himself down to anything of controversy. That is not what I see. Usually a coverup is well planned out and the answers are robotic. I never said coverup - I said tying himself down. Case in point: my thread. He went on and on about the 95% tax cut all through the campaign. He went on about it as the stimulus was written. Now, when confronted in a media conference whether or not he'll sign the budget if it lacks the cornerstone of his economic policy, he stumbles and goes on about the other items in the budget he pushed for, effectively dodging the question. The reporter calls him on it and he stumbles again. he's a great public speaker so long as his tele is with him or it's his robotic talking points. once he's on the spot, he loses all composure and stumbles just as bad as bush. That is not true. I have watched for the deception and it is not there. Now Bush had all his stuff planned and robotic. He messed up a few times and they fixed him real quick because he was going to be in jail if he talked on his own. so you think the fact he never answered the actual question being completely open and honest? There's no deception in the fact that he is leaving a loophole for his own tax cuts that he campaigned on for 20 months to be repealed? Ironically, I'm sure the other things he listed in his "answer" are likely the reason he cannot keep the tax cuts. Can't have your cake and eat it too. He answered the best he could. Not all answers are going to make everyone happy. you didn't answer the question. Is it right for him to campaign for so long on these tax breaks and when asked if he'd sign a bill that did not include them (twice) not answer no? one word is all i need unless you say yes... then I'd like a logical reason. I was satisfied with his answers. He is going to do just fine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it is funny that a man who thinks about his answers before he speaks instead of speaking the practiced rhetoric is considered ingenuine at some level. I guess we are so used to the smooth easiness of false rhetoric that we can't appreciate a real thought spoken in earnest, huh? I think we humans can some times be so suspicious of someone we don't particularly like we can't recognize when someone is being genuine. It's often not easy to let go of that to allow ourselves to hear. I agree. It's not thinking about the answer though - it's thinking about the wording. Any topic that he gives a real answer to is normally quick. When he does his stumbling "uh, uh" thing, the answer that follows normally is not direct and it is very thought out as to not tie himself down to anything of controversy. That is not what I see. Usually a coverup is well planned out and the answers are robotic. I never said coverup - I said tying himself down. Case in point: my thread. He went on and on about the 95% tax cut all through the campaign. He went on about it as the stimulus was written. Now, when confronted in a media conference whether or not he'll sign the budget if it lacks the cornerstone of his economic policy, he stumbles and goes on about the other items in the budget he pushed for, effectively dodging the question. The reporter calls him on it and he stumbles again. he's a great public speaker so long as his tele is with him or it's his robotic talking points. once he's on the spot, he loses all composure and stumbles just as bad as bush. That is not true. I have watched for the deception and it is not there. Now Bush had all his stuff planned and robotic. He messed up a few times and they fixed him real quick because he was going to be in jail if he talked on his own. so you think the fact he never answered the actual question being completely open and honest? There's no deception in the fact that he is leaving a loophole for his own tax cuts that he campaigned on for 20 months to be repealed? Ironically, I'm sure the other things he listed in his "answer" are likely the reason he cannot keep the tax cuts. Can't have your cake and eat it too. He answered the best he could. Not all answers are going to make everyone happy. you didn't answer the question. Is it right for him to campaign for so long on these tax breaks and when asked if he'd sign a bill that did not include them (twice) not answer no? one word is all i need unless you say yes... then I'd like a logical reason. I was satisfied with his answers. He is going to do just fine. you still didn't answer it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it is funny that a man who thinks about his answers before he speaks instead of speaking the practiced rhetoric is considered ingenuine at some level. I guess we are so used to the smooth easiness of false rhetoric that we can't appreciate a real thought spoken in earnest, huh? I think we humans can some times be so suspicious of someone we don't particularly like we can't recognize when someone is being genuine. It's often not easy to let go of that to allow ourselves to hear. I agree. It's not thinking about the answer though - it's thinking about the wording. Any topic that he gives a real answer to is normally quick. When he does his stumbling "uh, uh" thing, the answer that follows normally is not direct and it is very thought out as to not tie himself down to anything of controversy. That is not what I see. Usually a coverup is well planned out and the answers are robotic. I never said coverup - I said tying himself down. Case in point: my thread. He went on and on about the 95% tax cut all through the campaign. He went on about it as the stimulus was written. Now, when confronted in a media conference whether or not he'll sign the budget if it lacks the cornerstone of his economic policy, he stumbles and goes on about the other items in the budget he pushed for, effectively dodging the question. The reporter calls him on it and he stumbles again. he's a great public speaker so long as his tele is with him or it's his robotic talking points. once he's on the spot, he loses all composure and stumbles just as bad as bush. That is not true. I have watched for the deception and it is not there. Now Bush had all his stuff planned and robotic. He messed up a few times and they fixed him real quick because he was going to be in jail if he talked on his own. so you think the fact he never answered the actual question being completely open and honest? There's no deception in the fact that he is leaving a loophole for his own tax cuts that he campaigned on for 20 months to be repealed? Ironically, I'm sure the other things he listed in his "answer" are likely the reason he cannot keep the tax cuts. Can't have your cake and eat it too. He answered the best he could. Not all answers are going to make everyone happy. you didn't answer the question. Is it right for him to campaign for so long on these tax breaks and when asked if he'd sign a bill that did not include them (twice) not answer no? one word is all i need unless you say yes... then I'd like a logical reason. I was satisfied with his answers. He is going to do just fine. you still didn't answer it. Yes I did. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it is funny that a man who thinks about his answers before he speaks instead of speaking the practiced rhetoric is considered ingenuine at some level. I guess we are so used to the smooth easiness of false rhetoric that we can't appreciate a real thought spoken in earnest, huh? I think we humans can some times be so suspicious of someone we don't particularly like we can't recognize when someone is being genuine. It's often not easy to let go of that to allow ourselves to hear. I agree. It's not thinking about the answer though - it's thinking about the wording. Any topic that he gives a real answer to is normally quick. When he does his stumbling "uh, uh" thing, the answer that follows normally is not direct and it is very thought out as to not tie himself down to anything of controversy. That is not what I see. Usually a coverup is well planned out and the answers are robotic. I never said coverup - I said tying himself down. Case in point: my thread. He went on and on about the 95% tax cut all through the campaign. He went on about it as the stimulus was written. Now, when confronted in a media conference whether or not he'll sign the budget if it lacks the cornerstone of his economic policy, he stumbles and goes on about the other items in the budget he pushed for, effectively dodging the question. The reporter calls him on it and he stumbles again. he's a great public speaker so long as his tele is with him or it's his robotic talking points. once he's on the spot, he loses all composure and stumbles just as bad as bush. That is not true. I have watched for the deception and it is not there. Now Bush had all his stuff planned and robotic. He messed up a few times and they fixed him real quick because he was going to be in jail if he talked on his own. so you think the fact he never answered the actual question being completely open and honest? There's no deception in the fact that he is leaving a loophole for his own tax cuts that he campaigned on for 20 months to be repealed? Ironically, I'm sure the other things he listed in his "answer" are likely the reason he cannot keep the tax cuts. Can't have your cake and eat it too. He answered the best he could. Not all answers are going to make everyone happy. you didn't answer the question. Is it right for him to campaign for so long on these tax breaks and when asked if he'd sign a bill that did not include them (twice) not answer no? one word is all i need unless you say yes... then I'd like a logical reason. I was satisfied with his answers. He is going to do just fine. you still didn't answer it. Yes I did. you stated that you were satisfied with his answer, not whether it is right or wrong. am i to assume that you are ok with him going back on his economic cornerstone? if so, why is it ok? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it is funny that a man who thinks about his answers before he speaks instead of speaking the practiced rhetoric is considered ingenuine at some level. I guess we are so used to the smooth easiness of false rhetoric that we can't appreciate a real thought spoken in earnest, huh? I think we humans can some times be so suspicious of someone we don't particularly like we can't recognize when someone is being genuine. It's often not easy to let go of that to allow ourselves to hear. I agree. It's not thinking about the answer though - it's thinking about the wording. Any topic that he gives a real answer to is normally quick. When he does his stumbling "uh, uh" thing, the answer that follows normally is not direct and it is very thought out as to not tie himself down to anything of controversy. That is not what I see. Usually a coverup is well planned out and the answers are robotic. I never said coverup - I said tying himself down. Case in point: my thread. He went on and on about the 95% tax cut all through the campaign. He went on about it as the stimulus was written. Now, when confronted in a media conference whether or not he'll sign the budget if it lacks the cornerstone of his economic policy, he stumbles and goes on about the other items in the budget he pushed for, effectively dodging the question. The reporter calls him on it and he stumbles again. he's a great public speaker so long as his tele is with him or it's his robotic talking points. once he's on the spot, he loses all composure and stumbles just as bad as bush. That is not true. I have watched for the deception and it is not there. Now Bush had all his stuff planned and robotic. He messed up a few times and they fixed him real quick because he was going to be in jail if he talked on his own. so you think the fact he never answered the actual question being completely open and honest? There's no deception in the fact that he is leaving a loophole for his own tax cuts that he campaigned on for 20 months to be repealed? Ironically, I'm sure the other things he listed in his "answer" are likely the reason he cannot keep the tax cuts. Can't have your cake and eat it too. He answered the best he could. Not all answers are going to make everyone happy. you didn't answer the question. Is it right for him to campaign for so long on these tax breaks and when asked if he'd sign a bill that did not include them (twice) not answer no? one word is all i need unless you say yes... then I'd like a logical reason. I was satisfied with his answers. He is going to do just fine. you still didn't answer it. Yes I did. you stated that you were satisfied with his answer, not whether it is right or wrong. am i to assume that you are ok with him going back on his economic cornerstone? if so, why is it ok? When did he say he was going back on it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it is funny that a man who thinks about his answers before he speaks instead of speaking the practiced rhetoric is considered ingenuine at some level. I guess we are so used to the smooth easiness of false rhetoric that we can't appreciate a real thought spoken in earnest, huh? I think we humans can some times be so suspicious of someone we don't particularly like we can't recognize when someone is being genuine. It's often not easy to let go of that to allow ourselves to hear. I agree. It's not thinking about the answer though - it's thinking about the wording. Any topic that he gives a real answer to is normally quick. When he does his stumbling "uh, uh" thing, the answer that follows normally is not direct and it is very thought out as to not tie himself down to anything of controversy. That is not what I see. Usually a coverup is well planned out and the answers are robotic. I never said coverup - I said tying himself down. Case in point: my thread. He went on and on about the 95% tax cut all through the campaign. He went on about it as the stimulus was written. Now, when confronted in a media conference whether or not he'll sign the budget if it lacks the cornerstone of his economic policy, he stumbles and goes on about the other items in the budget he pushed for, effectively dodging the question. The reporter calls him on it and he stumbles again. he's a great public speaker so long as his tele is with him or it's his robotic talking points. once he's on the spot, he loses all composure and stumbles just as bad as bush. That is not true. I have watched for the deception and it is not there. Now Bush had all his stuff planned and robotic. He messed up a few times and they fixed him real quick because he was going to be in jail if he talked on his own. so you think the fact he never answered the actual question being completely open and honest? There's no deception in the fact that he is leaving a loophole for his own tax cuts that he campaigned on for 20 months to be repealed? Ironically, I'm sure the other things he listed in his "answer" are likely the reason he cannot keep the tax cuts. Can't have your cake and eat it too. He answered the best he could. Not all answers are going to make everyone happy. you didn't answer the question. Is it right for him to campaign for so long on these tax breaks and when asked if he'd sign a bill that did not include them (twice) not answer no? one word is all i need unless you say yes... then I'd like a logical reason. I was satisfied with his answers. He is going to do just fine. you still didn't answer it. Yes I did. you stated that you were satisfied with his answer, not whether it is right or wrong. am i to assume that you are ok with him going back on his economic cornerstone? if so, why is it ok? When did he say he was going back on it? allow me to re-word that he would not stand 100% behind his economic cornerstone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it is funny that a man who thinks about his answers before he speaks instead of speaking the practiced rhetoric is considered ingenuine at some level. I guess we are so used to the smooth easiness of false rhetoric that we can't appreciate a real thought spoken in earnest, huh? I think we humans can some times be so suspicious of someone we don't particularly like we can't recognize when someone is being genuine. It's often not easy to let go of that to allow ourselves to hear. I agree. It's not thinking about the answer though - it's thinking about the wording. Any topic that he gives a real answer to is normally quick. When he does his stumbling "uh, uh" thing, the answer that follows normally is not direct and it is very thought out as to not tie himself down to anything of controversy. That is not what I see. Usually a coverup is well planned out and the answers are robotic. I never said coverup - I said tying himself down. Case in point: my thread. He went on and on about the 95% tax cut all through the campaign. He went on about it as the stimulus was written. Now, when confronted in a media conference whether or not he'll sign the budget if it lacks the cornerstone of his economic policy, he stumbles and goes on about the other items in the budget he pushed for, effectively dodging the question. The reporter calls him on it and he stumbles again. he's a great public speaker so long as his tele is with him or it's his robotic talking points. once he's on the spot, he loses all composure and stumbles just as bad as bush. That is not true. I have watched for the deception and it is not there. Now Bush had all his stuff planned and robotic. He messed up a few times and they fixed him real quick because he was going to be in jail if he talked on his own. so you think the fact he never answered the actual question being completely open and honest? There's no deception in the fact that he is leaving a loophole for his own tax cuts that he campaigned on for 20 months to be repealed? Ironically, I'm sure the other things he listed in his "answer" are likely the reason he cannot keep the tax cuts. Can't have your cake and eat it too. He answered the best he could. Not all answers are going to make everyone happy. you didn't answer the question. Is it right for him to campaign for so long on these tax breaks and when asked if he'd sign a bill that did not include them (twice) not answer no? one word is all i need unless you say yes... then I'd like a logical reason. I was satisfied with his answers. He is going to do just fine. you still didn't answer it. Yes I did. you stated that you were satisfied with his answer, not whether it is right or wrong. am i to assume that you are ok with him going back on his economic cornerstone? if so, why is it ok? When did he say he was going back on it? allow me to re-word that he would not stand 100% behind his economic cornerstone. When did he say that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it is funny that a man who thinks about his answers before he speaks instead of speaking the practiced rhetoric is considered ingenuine at some level. I guess we are so used to the smooth easiness of false rhetoric that we can't appreciate a real thought spoken in earnest, huh? I think we humans can some times be so suspicious of someone we don't particularly like we can't recognize when someone is being genuine. It's often not easy to let go of that to allow ourselves to hear. I agree. It's not thinking about the answer though - it's thinking about the wording. Any topic that he gives a real answer to is normally quick. When he does his stumbling "uh, uh" thing, the answer that follows normally is not direct and it is very thought out as to not tie himself down to anything of controversy. That is not what I see. Usually a coverup is well planned out and the answers are robotic. I never said coverup - I said tying himself down. Case in point: my thread. He went on and on about the 95% tax cut all through the campaign. He went on about it as the stimulus was written. Now, when confronted in a media conference whether or not he'll sign the budget if it lacks the cornerstone of his economic policy, he stumbles and goes on about the other items in the budget he pushed for, effectively dodging the question. The reporter calls him on it and he stumbles again. he's a great public speaker so long as his tele is with him or it's his robotic talking points. once he's on the spot, he loses all composure and stumbles just as bad as bush. That is not true. I have watched for the deception and it is not there. Now Bush had all his stuff planned and robotic. He messed up a few times and they fixed him real quick because he was going to be in jail if he talked on his own. so you think the fact he never answered the actual question being completely open and honest? There's no deception in the fact that he is leaving a loophole for his own tax cuts that he campaigned on for 20 months to be repealed? Ironically, I'm sure the other things he listed in his "answer" are likely the reason he cannot keep the tax cuts. Can't have your cake and eat it too. He answered the best he could. Not all answers are going to make everyone happy. you didn't answer the question. Is it right for him to campaign for so long on these tax breaks and when asked if he'd sign a bill that did not include them (twice) not answer no? one word is all i need unless you say yes... then I'd like a logical reason. I was satisfied with his answers. He is going to do just fine. you still didn't answer it. Yes I did. you stated that you were satisfied with his answer, not whether it is right or wrong. am i to assume that you are ok with him going back on his economic cornerstone? if so, why is it ok? When did he say he was going back on it? allow me to re-word that he would not stand 100% behind his economic cornerstone. When did he say that? you really don't want to answer this one, do you? QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Right now on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats are writing a budget, and according to press accounts and their own statements, they’re not including the middle-class tax cut that you include in the stimulus. They’re talking about phasing that out. They’re not including the cap-and-trade that you have in your budget, and they’re not including other measures. I know when you outlined your four priorities over the weekend, a number of these things were not in there. Will you sign a budget if it does not contain a middle-class tax cut, does not contain cap-and- trade? PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I’ve emphasized repeatedly what I expect out of this budget. I expect that there’s serious efforts at health care reform, and that we are driving down costs for families and businesses, and ultimately for the federal and state governments that are going to be broke if we continue on the current path. I’ve said that we’ve got to have a serious energy policy that frees ourselves from dependence on foreign oil and makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We’ve got to invest in education, K through 12 and beyond, to upgrade the skills of the American worker so we can compete in -- in the international economy. And I’ve said that we’ve got to start driving our deficit numbers down. Now, we never expected, when we printed out our budget, that they would simply Xerox it and vote on it. We assume that it has to go through the legislative process. I have not yet seen the final product coming out of the Senate or the House, and we’re in constant conversations with them. I am confident that the budget we put forward will have those principles in place. When it comes to the middle-class tax cut, we already had that in the recovery. We know that that’s going to be in place for at least the next two years. We had identified a specific way to pay for it. If Congress has better ideas in terms of how to pay for it, then we’re happy to listen. When it comes to cap-and-trade, the broader principle is that we’ve got to move to a new energy era. And that means moving away from polluting energy sources towards cleaner energy sources. That is a potential engine for economic growth. I think cap-and-trade is the best way, from my perspective, to achieve some of those gains, because what it does is it starts pricing the pollution that’s being sent into the atmosphere. The way it’s structured, it has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So there are a -- a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through. Our point in the budget is, let’s get started now. We can’t wait. And my expectation is that the energy committees, or other relevant committees in both the House and the Senate, are going to be moving forward a strong energy package. It’ll be authorized. We’ll get it done. And I will sign it. Okay? QUESTION: So is that a yes, sir? You’re willing to sign a budget that doesn’t have those two provisions? PRESIDENT OBAMA: No; I -- what I said was -- is I haven’t seen yet what provisions are in there. The bottom line is -- is that I want to see health care, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit. And there are going to be a lot of details that are still being worked out. But I have confidence that we’re going to be able to get a budget done that’s reflective of what needs to happen in order to make sure that America grows. Okay? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it is funny that a man who thinks about his answers before he speaks instead of speaking the practiced rhetoric is considered ingenuine at some level. I guess we are so used to the smooth easiness of false rhetoric that we can't appreciate a real thought spoken in earnest, huh? I think we humans can some times be so suspicious of someone we don't particularly like we can't recognize when someone is being genuine. It's often not easy to let go of that to allow ourselves to hear. I agree. It's not thinking about the answer though - it's thinking about the wording. Any topic that he gives a real answer to is normally quick. When he does his stumbling "uh, uh" thing, the answer that follows normally is not direct and it is very thought out as to not tie himself down to anything of controversy. That is not what I see. Usually a coverup is well planned out and the answers are robotic. I never said coverup - I said tying himself down. Case in point: my thread. He went on and on about the 95% tax cut all through the campaign. He went on about it as the stimulus was written. Now, when confronted in a media conference whether or not he'll sign the budget if it lacks the cornerstone of his economic policy, he stumbles and goes on about the other items in the budget he pushed for, effectively dodging the question. The reporter calls him on it and he stumbles again. he's a great public speaker so long as his tele is with him or it's his robotic talking points. once he's on the spot, he loses all composure and stumbles just as bad as bush. That is not true. I have watched for the deception and it is not there. Now Bush had all his stuff planned and robotic. He messed up a few times and they fixed him real quick because he was going to be in jail if he talked on his own. so you think the fact he never answered the actual question being completely open and honest? There's no deception in the fact that he is leaving a loophole for his own tax cuts that he campaigned on for 20 months to be repealed? Ironically, I'm sure the other things he listed in his "answer" are likely the reason he cannot keep the tax cuts. Can't have your cake and eat it too. He answered the best he could. Not all answers are going to make everyone happy. you didn't answer the question. Is it right for him to campaign for so long on these tax breaks and when asked if he'd sign a bill that did not include them (twice) not answer no? one word is all i need unless you say yes... then I'd like a logical reason. I was satisfied with his answers. He is going to do just fine. you still didn't answer it. Yes I did. you stated that you were satisfied with his answer, not whether it is right or wrong. am i to assume that you are ok with him going back on his economic cornerstone? if so, why is it ok? When did he say he was going back on it? allow me to re-word that he would not stand 100% behind his economic cornerstone. When did he say that? you really don't want to answer this one, do you? QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Right now on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats are writing a budget, and according to press accounts and their own statements, they’re not including the middle-class tax cut that you include in the stimulus. They’re talking about phasing that out. They’re not including the cap-and-trade that you have in your budget, and they’re not including other measures. I know when you outlined your four priorities over the weekend, a number of these things were not in there. Will you sign a budget if it does not contain a middle-class tax cut, does not contain cap-and- trade? PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I’ve emphasized repeatedly what I expect out of this budget. I expect that there’s serious efforts at health care reform, and that we are driving down costs for families and businesses, and ultimately for the federal and state governments that are going to be broke if we continue on the current path. I’ve said that we’ve got to have a serious energy policy that frees ourselves from dependence on foreign oil and makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We’ve got to invest in education, K through 12 and beyond, to upgrade the skills of the American worker so we can compete in -- in the international economy. And I’ve said that we’ve got to start driving our deficit numbers down. Now, we never expected, when we printed out our budget, that they would simply Xerox it and vote on it. We assume that it has to go through the legislative process. I have not yet seen the final product coming out of the Senate or the House, and we’re in constant conversations with them. I am confident that the budget we put forward will have those principles in place. When it comes to the middle-class tax cut, we already had that in the recovery. We know that that’s going to be in place for at least the next two years. We had identified a specific way to pay for it. If Congress has better ideas in terms of how to pay for it, then we’re happy to listen. When it comes to cap-and-trade, the broader principle is that we’ve got to move to a new energy era. And that means moving away from polluting energy sources towards cleaner energy sources. That is a potential engine for economic growth. I think cap-and-trade is the best way, from my perspective, to achieve some of those gains, because what it does is it starts pricing the pollution that’s being sent into the atmosphere. The way it’s structured, it has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So there are a -- a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through. Our point in the budget is, let’s get started now. We can’t wait. And my expectation is that the energy committees, or other relevant committees in both the House and the Senate, are going to be moving forward a strong energy package. It’ll be authorized. We’ll get it done. And I will sign it. Okay? QUESTION: So is that a yes, sir? You’re willing to sign a budget that doesn’t have those two provisions? PRESIDENT OBAMA: No; I -- what I said was -- is I haven’t seen yet what provisions are in there. The bottom line is -- is that I want to see health care, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit. And there are going to be a lot of details that are still being worked out. But I have confidence that we’re going to be able to get a budget done that’s reflective of what needs to happen in order to make sure that America grows. Okay? So you wanted to prove yourself wrong huh? He did not say what you were trying to say he did and he covered the questions very well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it is funny that a man who thinks about his answers before he speaks instead of speaking the practiced rhetoric is considered ingenuine at some level. I guess we are so used to the smooth easiness of false rhetoric that we can't appreciate a real thought spoken in earnest, huh? I think we humans can some times be so suspicious of someone we don't particularly like we can't recognize when someone is being genuine. It's often not easy to let go of that to allow ourselves to hear. I agree. It's not thinking about the answer though - it's thinking about the wording. Any topic that he gives a real answer to is normally quick. When he does his stumbling "uh, uh" thing, the answer that follows normally is not direct and it is very thought out as to not tie himself down to anything of controversy. That is not what I see. Usually a coverup is well planned out and the answers are robotic. I never said coverup - I said tying himself down. Case in point: my thread. He went on and on about the 95% tax cut all through the campaign. He went on about it as the stimulus was written. Now, when confronted in a media conference whether or not he'll sign the budget if it lacks the cornerstone of his economic policy, he stumbles and goes on about the other items in the budget he pushed for, effectively dodging the question. The reporter calls him on it and he stumbles again. he's a great public speaker so long as his tele is with him or it's his robotic talking points. once he's on the spot, he loses all composure and stumbles just as bad as bush. That is not true. I have watched for the deception and it is not there. Now Bush had all his stuff planned and robotic. He messed up a few times and they fixed him real quick because he was going to be in jail if he talked on his own. so you think the fact he never answered the actual question being completely open and honest? There's no deception in the fact that he is leaving a loophole for his own tax cuts that he campaigned on for 20 months to be repealed? Ironically, I'm sure the other things he listed in his "answer" are likely the reason he cannot keep the tax cuts. Can't have your cake and eat it too. He answered the best he could. Not all answers are going to make everyone happy. you didn't answer the question. Is it right for him to campaign for so long on these tax breaks and when asked if he'd sign a bill that did not include them (twice) not answer no? one word is all i need unless you say yes... then I'd like a logical reason. I was satisfied with his answers. He is going to do just fine. you still didn't answer it. Yes I did. you stated that you were satisfied with his answer, not whether it is right or wrong. am i to assume that you are ok with him going back on his economic cornerstone? if so, why is it ok? When did he say he was going back on it? allow me to re-word that he would not stand 100% behind his economic cornerstone. When did he say that? you really don't want to answer this one, do you? QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Right now on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats are writing a budget, and according to press accounts and their own statements, they’re not including the middle-class tax cut that you include in the stimulus. They’re talking about phasing that out. They’re not including the cap-and-trade that you have in your budget, and they’re not including other measures. I know when you outlined your four priorities over the weekend, a number of these things were not in there. Will you sign a budget if it does not contain a middle-class tax cut, does not contain cap-and- trade? PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I’ve emphasized repeatedly what I expect out of this budget. I expect that there’s serious efforts at health care reform, and that we are driving down costs for families and businesses, and ultimately for the federal and state governments that are going to be broke if we continue on the current path. I’ve said that we’ve got to have a serious energy policy that frees ourselves from dependence on foreign oil and makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We’ve got to invest in education, K through 12 and beyond, to upgrade the skills of the American worker so we can compete in -- in the international economy. And I’ve said that we’ve got to start driving our deficit numbers down. Now, we never expected, when we printed out our budget, that they would simply Xerox it and vote on it. We assume that it has to go through the legislative process. I have not yet seen the final product coming out of the Senate or the House, and we’re in constant conversations with them. I am confident that the budget we put forward will have those principles in place. When it comes to the middle-class tax cut, we already had that in the recovery. We know that that’s going to be in place for at least the next two years. We had identified a specific way to pay for it. If Congress has better ideas in terms of how to pay for it, then we’re happy to listen. When it comes to cap-and-trade, the broader principle is that we’ve got to move to a new energy era. And that means moving away from polluting energy sources towards cleaner energy sources. That is a potential engine for economic growth. I think cap-and-trade is the best way, from my perspective, to achieve some of those gains, because what it does is it starts pricing the pollution that’s being sent into the atmosphere. The way it’s structured, it has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So there are a -- a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through. Our point in the budget is, let’s get started now. We can’t wait. And my expectation is that the energy committees, or other relevant committees in both the House and the Senate, are going to be moving forward a strong energy package. It’ll be authorized. We’ll get it done. And I will sign it. Okay? QUESTION: So is that a yes, sir? You’re willing to sign a budget that doesn’t have those two provisions? PRESIDENT OBAMA: No; I -- what I said was -- is I haven’t seen yet what provisions are in there. The bottom line is -- is that I want to see health care, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit. And there are going to be a lot of details that are still being worked out. But I have confidence that we’re going to be able to get a budget done that’s reflective of what needs to happen in order to make sure that America grows. Okay? So you wanted to prove yourself wrong huh? He did not say what you were trying to say he did and he covered the questions very well. WTF? do me a favor and quote this and bold the part where he says he would not vote on a budget that did not include his economic policy cornerstone tax cuts. They're there for 2 years. Letting them expire after that is not standing behind them 100%. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey guys could you maybe cut the quoted responses down the last two at least so it's easier to follow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
TJN
on
Wed 03/25/09 03:59 AM
|
|
The one part I didnt like was where he was talking about American families tightening our belts, sacrificing, and giving up a days work so their fellow employees could keep there job.
I think it mighht take some of the burdon off the people if government wouldnt try to push through everything they want right now. I wish he would focus solely on the economy and the banking system that got us in this mess first and foremost. If he would do that I think he would earn more respect from those who dislike him, and give him more political capital to move on with the rest of his agenda. JMO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it is funny that a man who thinks about his answers before he speaks instead of speaking the practiced rhetoric is considered ingenuine at some level. I guess we are so used to the smooth easiness of false rhetoric that we can't appreciate a real thought spoken in earnest, huh? I think we humans can some times be so suspicious of someone we don't particularly like we can't recognize when someone is being genuine. It's often not easy to let go of that to allow ourselves to hear. I agree. It's not thinking about the answer though - it's thinking about the wording. Any topic that he gives a real answer to is normally quick. When he does his stumbling "uh, uh" thing, the answer that follows normally is not direct and it is very thought out as to not tie himself down to anything of controversy. That is not what I see. Usually a coverup is well planned out and the answers are robotic. I never said coverup - I said tying himself down. Case in point: my thread. He went on and on about the 95% tax cut all through the campaign. He went on about it as the stimulus was written. Now, when confronted in a media conference whether or not he'll sign the budget if it lacks the cornerstone of his economic policy, he stumbles and goes on about the other items in the budget he pushed for, effectively dodging the question. The reporter calls him on it and he stumbles again. he's a great public speaker so long as his tele is with him or it's his robotic talking points. once he's on the spot, he loses all composure and stumbles just as bad as bush. That is not true. I have watched for the deception and it is not there. Now Bush had all his stuff planned and robotic. He messed up a few times and they fixed him real quick because he was going to be in jail if he talked on his own. so you think the fact he never answered the actual question being completely open and honest? There's no deception in the fact that he is leaving a loophole for his own tax cuts that he campaigned on for 20 months to be repealed? Ironically, I'm sure the other things he listed in his "answer" are likely the reason he cannot keep the tax cuts. Can't have your cake and eat it too. He answered the best he could. Not all answers are going to make everyone happy. you didn't answer the question. Is it right for him to campaign for so long on these tax breaks and when asked if he'd sign a bill that did not include them (twice) not answer no? one word is all i need unless you say yes... then I'd like a logical reason. I was satisfied with his answers. He is going to do just fine. you still didn't answer it. Yes I did. you stated that you were satisfied with his answer, not whether it is right or wrong. am i to assume that you are ok with him going back on his economic cornerstone? if so, why is it ok? When did he say he was going back on it? allow me to re-word that he would not stand 100% behind his economic cornerstone. When did he say that? you really don't want to answer this one, do you? QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Right now on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats are writing a budget, and according to press accounts and their own statements, they’re not including the middle-class tax cut that you include in the stimulus. They’re talking about phasing that out. They’re not including the cap-and-trade that you have in your budget, and they’re not including other measures. I know when you outlined your four priorities over the weekend, a number of these things were not in there. Will you sign a budget if it does not contain a middle-class tax cut, does not contain cap-and- trade? PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I’ve emphasized repeatedly what I expect out of this budget. I expect that there’s serious efforts at health care reform, and that we are driving down costs for families and businesses, and ultimately for the federal and state governments that are going to be broke if we continue on the current path. I’ve said that we’ve got to have a serious energy policy that frees ourselves from dependence on foreign oil and makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We’ve got to invest in education, K through 12 and beyond, to upgrade the skills of the American worker so we can compete in -- in the international economy. And I’ve said that we’ve got to start driving our deficit numbers down. Now, we never expected, when we printed out our budget, that they would simply Xerox it and vote on it. We assume that it has to go through the legislative process. I have not yet seen the final product coming out of the Senate or the House, and we’re in constant conversations with them. I am confident that the budget we put forward will have those principles in place. When it comes to the middle-class tax cut, we already had that in the recovery. We know that that’s going to be in place for at least the next two years. We had identified a specific way to pay for it. If Congress has better ideas in terms of how to pay for it, then we’re happy to listen. When it comes to cap-and-trade, the broader principle is that we’ve got to move to a new energy era. And that means moving away from polluting energy sources towards cleaner energy sources. That is a potential engine for economic growth. I think cap-and-trade is the best way, from my perspective, to achieve some of those gains, because what it does is it starts pricing the pollution that’s being sent into the atmosphere. The way it’s structured, it has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So there are a -- a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through. Our point in the budget is, let’s get started now. We can’t wait. And my expectation is that the energy committees, or other relevant committees in both the House and the Senate, are going to be moving forward a strong energy package. It’ll be authorized. We’ll get it done. And I will sign it. Okay? QUESTION: So is that a yes, sir? You’re willing to sign a budget that doesn’t have those two provisions? PRESIDENT OBAMA: No; I -- what I said was -- is I haven’t seen yet what provisions are in there. The bottom line is -- is that I want to see health care, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit. And there are going to be a lot of details that are still being worked out. But I have confidence that we’re going to be able to get a budget done that’s reflective of what needs to happen in order to make sure that America grows. Okay? So you wanted to prove yourself wrong huh? He did not say what you were trying to say he did and he covered the questions very well. WTF? do me a favor and quote this and bold the part where he says he would not vote on a budget that did not include his economic policy cornerstone tax cuts. They're there for 2 years. Letting them expire after that is not standing behind them 100%. You're bangin'n you're head Dude. She'll defend and follow her Messiah-in Chief to the pits of HeII. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The one part I didnt like was where he was talking about American families tightening our belts, sacrificing, and giving up a days work so their fellow employees could keep there job. I think it mighht take some of the burdon off the people if government wouldnt try to push through everything they want right now. I wish he would focus solely on the economy and the banking system that got us in this mess first and foremost. If he would do that I think he would earn more respect from those who dislike him, and give him more political capital to move on with the rest of his agenda. JMO My mom's work did that even before this all happened. The employees volunteered to work one day free so other employees wouldn't be laid off. They did this 2 times in 5 yrs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it is funny that a man who thinks about his answers before he speaks instead of speaking the practiced rhetoric is considered ingenuine at some level. I guess we are so used to the smooth easiness of false rhetoric that we can't appreciate a real thought spoken in earnest, huh? I think we humans can some times be so suspicious of someone we don't particularly like we can't recognize when someone is being genuine. It's often not easy to let go of that to allow ourselves to hear. I agree. It's not thinking about the answer though - it's thinking about the wording. Any topic that he gives a real answer to is normally quick. When he does his stumbling "uh, uh" thing, the answer that follows normally is not direct and it is very thought out as to not tie himself down to anything of controversy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it is funny that a man who thinks about his answers before he speaks instead of speaking the practiced rhetoric is considered ingenuine at some level. I guess we are so used to the smooth easiness of false rhetoric that we can't appreciate a real thought spoken in earnest, huh? I think we humans can some times be so suspicious of someone we don't particularly like we can't recognize when someone is being genuine. It's often not easy to let go of that to allow ourselves to hear. I agree. It's not thinking about the answer though - it's thinking about the wording. Any topic that he gives a real answer to is normally quick. When he does his stumbling "uh, uh" thing, the answer that follows normally is not direct and it is very thought out as to not tie himself down to anything of controversy. That is not what I see. Usually a coverup is well planned out and the answers are robotic. I never said coverup - I said tying himself down. Case in point: my thread. He went on and on about the 95% tax cut all through the campaign. He went on about it as the stimulus was written. Now, when confronted in a media conference whether or not he'll sign the budget if it lacks the cornerstone of his economic policy, he stumbles and goes on about the other items in the budget he pushed for, effectively dodging the question. The reporter calls him on it and he stumbles again. he's a great public speaker so long as his tele is with him or it's his robotic talking points. once he's on the spot, he loses all composure and stumbles just as bad as bush. That is not true. I have watched for the deception and it is not there. Now Bush had all his stuff planned and robotic. He messed up a few times and they fixed him real quick because he was going to be in jail if he talked on his own. so you think the fact he never answered the actual question being completely open and honest? There's no deception in the fact that he is leaving a loophole for his own tax cuts that he campaigned on for 20 months to be repealed? Ironically, I'm sure the other things he listed in his "answer" are likely the reason he cannot keep the tax cuts. Can't have your cake and eat it too. He answered the best he could. Not all answers are going to make everyone happy. you didn't answer the question. Is it right for him to campaign for so long on these tax breaks and when asked if he'd sign a bill that did not include them (twice) not answer no? one word is all i need unless you say yes... then I'd like a logical reason. I was satisfied with his answers. He is going to do just fine. you still didn't answer it. Yes I did. you stated that you were satisfied with his answer, not whether it is right or wrong. am i to assume that you are ok with him going back on his economic cornerstone? if so, why is it ok? When did he say he was going back on it? allow me to re-word that he would not stand 100% behind his economic cornerstone. When did he say that? you really don't want to answer this one, do you? QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Right now on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats are writing a budget, and according to press accounts and their own statements, they’re not including the middle-class tax cut that you include in the stimulus. They’re talking about phasing that out. They’re not including the cap-and-trade that you have in your budget, and they’re not including other measures. I know when you outlined your four priorities over the weekend, a number of these things were not in there. Will you sign a budget if it does not contain a middle-class tax cut, does not contain cap-and- trade? PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I’ve emphasized repeatedly what I expect out of this budget. I expect that there’s serious efforts at health care reform, and that we are driving down costs for families and businesses, and ultimately for the federal and state governments that are going to be broke if we continue on the current path. I’ve said that we’ve got to have a serious energy policy that frees ourselves from dependence on foreign oil and makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We’ve got to invest in education, K through 12 and beyond, to upgrade the skills of the American worker so we can compete in -- in the international economy. And I’ve said that we’ve got to start driving our deficit numbers down. Now, we never expected, when we printed out our budget, that they would simply Xerox it and vote on it. We assume that it has to go through the legislative process. I have not yet seen the final product coming out of the Senate or the House, and we’re in constant conversations with them. I am confident that the budget we put forward will have those principles in place. When it comes to the middle-class tax cut, we already had that in the recovery. We know that that’s going to be in place for at least the next two years. We had identified a specific way to pay for it. If Congress has better ideas in terms of how to pay for it, then we’re happy to listen. When it comes to cap-and-trade, the broader principle is that we’ve got to move to a new energy era. And that means moving away from polluting energy sources towards cleaner energy sources. That is a potential engine for economic growth. I think cap-and-trade is the best way, from my perspective, to achieve some of those gains, because what it does is it starts pricing the pollution that’s being sent into the atmosphere. The way it’s structured, it has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So there are a -- a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through. Our point in the budget is, let’s get started now. We can’t wait. And my expectation is that the energy committees, or other relevant committees in both the House and the Senate, are going to be moving forward a strong energy package. It’ll be authorized. We’ll get it done. And I will sign it. Okay? QUESTION: So is that a yes, sir? You’re willing to sign a budget that doesn’t have those two provisions? PRESIDENT OBAMA: No; I -- what I said was -- is I haven’t seen yet what provisions are in there. The bottom line is -- is that I want to see health care, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit. And there are going to be a lot of details that are still being worked out. But I have confidence that we’re going to be able to get a budget done that’s reflective of what needs to happen in order to make sure that America grows. Okay? So you wanted to prove yourself wrong huh? He did not say what you were trying to say he did and he covered the questions very well. WTF? do me a favor and quote this and bold the part where he says he would not vote on a budget that did not include his economic policy cornerstone tax cuts. They're there for 2 years. Letting them expire after that is not standing behind them 100%. You're bangin'n you're head Dude. She'll defend and follow her Messiah-in Chief to the pits of HeII. I just enjoy watching people make fools of themselves by spouting off and not defending their own words. I'm a ****, I know. I know it's useless, but the more she dodges the question, the more enjoyment I get out of it. So typical of a blind follower. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just enjoy watching people make fools of themselves by spouting off and not defending their own words. I'm a ****, I know. I know it's useless, but the more she dodges the question, the more enjoyment I get out of it. So typical of a blind follower.
I don't blindly follow anyone, which shows how much you know of me which is nothing. I answered the question. I found nothing wrong with the answer he gave. Congress has yet to finish their suggestions to the budget and he is going to stand for the working people as he said he was. It is funny that you assume to have me on the run and have yet to even get me walking fast....lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just enjoy watching people make fools of themselves by spouting off and not defending their own words. I'm a ****, I know. I know it's useless, but the more she dodges the question, the more enjoyment I get out of it. So typical of a blind follower. I don't blindly follow anyone, which shows how much you know of me which is nothing. I answered the question. I found nothing wrong with the answer he gave. Congress has yet to finish their suggestions to the budget and he is going to stand for the working people as he said he was. It is funny that you assume to have me on the run and have yet to even get me walking fast....lol then why is it ok for him to fail to support his #1 campaign promise just 2 months after being elected? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just enjoy watching people make fools of themselves by spouting off and not defending their own words. I'm a ****, I know. I know it's useless, but the more she dodges the question, the more enjoyment I get out of it. So typical of a blind follower. I don't blindly follow anyone, which shows how much you know of me which is nothing. I answered the question. I found nothing wrong with the answer he gave. Congress has yet to finish their suggestions to the budget and he is going to stand for the working people as he said he was. It is funny that you assume to have me on the run and have yet to even get me walking fast....lol then why is it ok for him to fail to support his #1 campaign promise just 2 months after being elected? He didn't. |
|
|
|
|
